It's a story about an Al Queda bombing in Uganda.
Here's the road back to "The West's seven-richest countries", with of course The United States right on top of that pile ... and why they're at least partly "to blame".
Uganda was attacked for having peace keeping troops in Somalia. Al Queda's in Somalia because it's a weak country, and Al Queda likes to take advantage of weak countries. Apparently the "seven-richest" westerns have given a ton of money to African countries, but not as much as they said they would. Ergo, the African countries aren't as rich as they would have been (if more wealth had been redistributed to them), leaving them weak and grumpy, and it was some local dispute that triggered Al Queda to launch the attack .... and of course it wouldn't be there if the Western countries had been less un-greedy. If they had been as generous as they pledged. If they had given more money.
The West’s seven-richest countries are partly to blame. In 2005, they pledged to double their aid to Africa’s poorest countries by this year; they have fallen $18 billion short. Why, when many of these countries were ready to project their power and invade Iraq, are they so impotent when it comes to addressing Somalia’s woes?So there you have it. It's not completely the fault of the people who carried out the attack. (Funny, I thought it was.) Naturally, it is the United States and it's six rich buddies in the West.
And let's answer that last question for our UAE friends, shall we?
Perhaps it was because Somalia didn't invade and annex a soveriegn country and lose the ensuing war the UN sanctioned to fight back against this most blatant breach of international law -- and then proceed to break the cease-fire agreements it signed to end the hostilities and ignore the barrage of UN resolutions (17 of them) while firing on the planes that flew to enforce them after their leader slaughtered several hundred thousand of his own people because he didn't like them.
There just might be a slight difference in circumstances.